Re: [Idr] Request to adopt draft-heitz-idr-large-community - Working Group Adoption call (9/6 to 9/20)

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 12:27 PM, heasley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 	None of these transitive things are necessary.  Operators already set the
>> transitive nature of the policies by enabling sending communities on a per-session
>> or group basis already.  If they are going beyond boundaries, it's because
>> the operator explicitly is permitting them.
> 
> While it would appear that someone is trying to be overly clever with the
> flags, I disagree.  It would be useful to mark a currently defined community
> as non-transitive and, since the whole premise of the draft is to allow for
> other applications and formats of a "community", transitivity is portentially
> a universally useful attribute.  eg: I may want to send route origin
> communities to customers, but not want them to forward that.

You nailed it.

An awful lot of policy clutter exists to simply strip things that should be stripped for you.  

That said, as Jared posted, some people (configurations) may choose to ignore such automatic mechanisms.

-- Jeff